Well, they aren't. Which is why we need to funnel some money down there so maybe they can live, period.

Anyway, income disparity IS a big deal if the poor can't eat. If it gets too big, this happens:

Having an income disparity in itself is not a big deal if the poor can't eat.... the big deal is that the poor can't eat. The fact that other people are rich is irrelevant to the problem of the poor not having food.

The only scenario in which the income disparity would truly matter is in a world with a fixed amount of goods. So there's a fixed amount of food, a fixed amount of blankets, a fixed amount of medicine, etc. In that case sure, if the rich have all the resources... that has a direct effect on the poor.

But we obviously do not live in a world like that. The supply of goods can be raised or lowered. We can produce more food, more blankets, more medicine. So the question we must be asking ourselves is, how do we raise the supply? How do we make it so everyone, even the poor, have an abundance of goods? Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor does not grow the amount of goods in the world, it just redistributes the ones we already have.

Contrary to your beliefs, the rich are the last people we want to tax if the mission is to help the poor. It's the rich who supply all of us with the material goods we've come to take for granted. Xbox, television, laptops, kerosene, cigarettes, grocery stores.... those things all made people rich. And it was the human drive to become rich that propelled their creation in the first place. The higher you tax the rich, the less attractive it will be for people to create things like this in the future. And then the poor will be really in trouble.